Contrarian Stock Market Investing News - Featuring Bargain Stocks » Kerosene

Investing in India — What They Didn’t Teach Them at Harvard!

Jawahir Mulraj — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:18:42 +0000

When the UPA Government first came in, great hopes were placed on a well educated, sensible, triumvirate of Finance Minister, P Chidambaram, educated at Harvard, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, (Cambridge and Oxford) and Planning Commission Chairman, Montek Singh, (Oxford).

Their erudition and their education, would, it was felt, help them steer a coalition Government hobbled by Left parties with antediluvian ideas of economic growth, on a sensible path. For four years, it seemed things were going well, with the Indian economy growing at 8% and pouring enormous amounts of tax revenues to the Government. The triumvirate, alas, forgot what they had learnt in economics classes and succumbed to the politics of survival. We will now pay the price of neglect to plan for the future.

Poor governance matters. Look at Vietnam, till now one of the tiger economies, whose fast economic growth attracted a lot of foreign capital and created a stockmarket boom. The growth was not managed. The stockmarket has fallen 70% from its peak and every single day in April was a downtick! Look at Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe’s neglect has turned a country once the rice bowl of Africa, feeding other nations, into one that has to beg for food as it is bankrupt. Look at North Korea where upward of 1 m. people will die of famine as the great leader chases his nuclear nightmare.

Luckily India has democracy, and democratic institutions. But economic realities must be faced, such as rising crude oil prices unable to sustain untargeted subsidies, without fully prostrating to political compulsions. The triumverate ought to have been protected from political interference, much as Narasimha Rao did when Manmohan was the Prime Minister!

GDP growth is expected to slow down this year, though we should still be over 8%. If services, which account for 55% of the economy, continue growing at above 10%, that provides 5.5% GDP growth; industry, which accounts for 28%, growing at 7% (as in April), would provide another 2% and agriculture, accounting for 18% would, with a 3% growth, chip in with 0.5%, adding up to 8%. Or more, with higher growth in any sector.

The irony is that the resources generated during the past four years in terms of tax revenues, have not been spent in ensuring the future. Most of it has been wasted in political gestures, such as the subsidy on petroleum products. Only a small fraction, perhaps not even a tenth, goes to the truly deserving, who would need subsidised kerosene and LPG as fuel for cooking.

This population could provided the subsidy in a more effective way, using technology, without needing a blanket low price for all. The kerosene mafia, which adulterates diesel with subsidised kerosene, is a beneficiary of this largesse, as are car owners who are not discouraged from buying fuel guzzling cars. (Belatedly, the Government has woken up to its responsibility and levied a special excise of upto Rs 20,000 on fuel guzzlers; too little, too late). Contrast this with Indonesia, where the Government had the cajones to hike petrol prices by 30% last year. Demand for oil has fallen 10% since.

The BJP Government had, when in power, hiked petrol and diesel prices by an equal amount, even though the underlying crude oil price growth was much less. However, it did it in 34 small increases, without attracting public fury, instead of one large one, leading to protests. (Ironically the protestors were the very people who prevented the small hikes). So even when politics comes into economics, management of it becomes important.

Kerosene coupons, much like food coupons in America, would be one way of better targeting subsidies to reach only the intended beneficiaries. Modern day technologies like smart cards embedded with chips to distribute products can also be used. The Government could, and should, have used buoyant tax revenues to develop resources using floating turbines to generate wind power and wave power technology to generate power from waves is now advanced enough to make it equivalent to nuclear power, which would give the Government an alternative. India, with its huge coastline, would be able to develop this, had the priorities of nation building been determine by strategic thinking and economics instead of populism and accommodative politics!

Because prices of petrol and diesel have been subsidised, there is no price effect on its consumption, resulting in a ballooning import bill for crude oil. This leads to a current account deficit, taken care of by capital inflows. To attract which, and to control inflation (which in the last week of May touched a 7 year high of 8.75%), interest rates would need to be raised. RBI did just that, raising the repo rate (the one at which it lends to banks) by a quarter percentage, to 8%. The interest rate cycle is turning up, globally, which would negatively affect equity markets.

With all these untargeted, hence largely wasteful, subsidies on oil, on fertilizers, with the increase in salary after the pay commission hike and with the farm loan waiver, the Government’s fiscal position is atrocious, which is why foreign investors have been selling in spades. Which is also why the Government approved a procurement price of Rs 850/quintal for wheat, lower than the Rs 1000 recommended by CAC.

There was a lot of interesting corporate news. The promoters of Ranbaxy, India’s largest pharma company, agreed to sell their 34% stake to Japanese Dai Ichi Sankyo at a price significantly higher than market price, which consequently shot up. Dai Ichi will make an open offer for 20% at the same price, of Rs 737 per share.

Reliance Communication, which is planning a merger with MTN of South Africa which would be the largest deal from India, will have to face another complication. (The cap on foreign investment in telecom is a major complication which calls for a convoluted route to takeover). Reliance Industries has claimed that it has the right of first refusal if R Com is sold.

Idea Cellular is taking over Spice, in which Telekom Malaysia has a 39.5% stake. Post merger and preferential allotment, it would end up with 20%.

The India story is still good, largely due to the demographic dividend, with a young, well educated population who are free to pursue dreams. At a recent analyst meet of NIIT it was pointed out that India will have an addition of some 47 m. educated people in the 19-25 age group. The rest of the world (including China) will have a reduction of some 53 m. in this age group. Given proper governance, and a polity that cares for the future of the country more than for its longevity, there is no reason why the boom should not continue for years. Given good governance!

Last week the sensex fell sharply by 506 points on opening day (high oil prices, weak Dow), rallied thereafter, then fell again, to close down 382 points at 15181. The Nifty fell 110 points to end at 4517.

It is possible that the sensex can rally to over 16,000 level. One could exit if it does, for thereafter, at some point, early elections may be called. Oil prices are likely to fall, which would help control inflation. The inflationary environment would probably be most benign in Nov and Dec. An election then may probably be seen to be in the best interest of the ruling Government.

Source: Investing in India – What They Didn’t Teach Them at Harvard!

Special Energy Indicator Points Toward Higher Gas Prices and a Potential 467% Profit Play

Keith Fitz-Gerald — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:02:46 +0000

Here at Money Morning over the past six months, we’ve talked a great deal about oil and gasoline prices. We’ve offered our predictions about how high those prices were going, and have detailed a number of investment opportunities – chosen as much for their margins of safety as for their profit potential.

This time we’re going to detail three energy stocks with the potential for double-digit – or even triple-digit – profit gains. Admittedly, these are longer-shot, speculative plays. But we used a special energy indicator to help ferret out these energy plays.

This indicator is known as the “crack spread.”

In case you’ve never heard the term before, the crack spread is the difference between the price of crude oil and the value of the petroleum products that refiners can make from it. The crack spread can widen or narrow over time, depending upon various combinations of supply and demand.

If the spread is positive, that means the price of the products that result from the refining process – gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, heating oil, kerosene and asphalt, to name a few – is greater than the cost of the crude oil needed to make them. But if the spread is negative, it suggests that the cost of crude is higher than the end-game value of its derivatives.

Right now, the crack spread is narrowing. In fact, it has been for some time as governments around the world and gasoline companies actually try to hold down the pain motorists feel at the pump.

Granted, governments and major oil players make for strange bedfellows. But they have a common interest right now: Both are trying to prevent “demand destruction,” the plunge in oil demand that would result if millions of motorists – fed up with high oil and gasoline prices – just stopped driving. Governments want to prevent an economic collapse, while the integrated oil companies simply want to avoid being branded as the “bad boys” of the soaring-oil-price era – making it much easier for the incoming presidential administration to slap the entire sector with an “excess-profits tax” (something that’s already being discussed by Washington insiders).

But we can also see another scenario, one that’s very different. Peering into our crystal ball, we can see a situation in which the crack spread begins to widen, and gasoline prices run away anyway – eventually reaching $7 or even $9 a gallon.

For motorists, the pain would be excruciating. For investors, however, there’s a chance for double or even triple-digit profit gains.

Let me explain…

The Subsidy Gambit

It turns out that a number of Asian governments – most notably Taiwan, Malaysia and China, for instance – are actually reducing or eliminating fuel subsidies designed to shield their consumers from crude oil’s relentless march. Ostensibly, this is designed to control demand, but history suggests this will merely give those with the money access to increasingly large supplies that they’ll gobble up. In other words, we believe that demand may be growing fast enough to override the prices that governments around the world still believe to be inelastic.

Combine that possible new reality with the fact that a developing Asia accounts for as much as 70% of the increase in global oil consumption, this end of subsidies would probably hammer worldwide markets, including our own.

Given that Asia represents a mere 20% of current global usage, Asia’s growth is critical to how the rest of the world uses and prices petroleum-related products – particularly gasoline. Incidentally, this stands in stark contrast to how Japan and much of Europe do things where high taxes on fuel and transportation are used to blunt demand.

The economic forces that will be unleashed when these subsidies are removed have the potential to make the Great Tunguska Blast that took place 100 years ago this month look like a wet firecracker.

Indonesia, for instance, spends nearly 20% of its budget to underwrite fuel costs and has telegraphed a 30% hike in fuel prices when those subsidies are removed. It’s much the same story in China, India and the Philippines, where separate figures for fuel subsidies are hard to come by, but where it’s safe to say that the net effect of these price controls have contributed to artificially low prices and artificially high levels of demand.

In China, where the government caps gasoline prices, for instance, motorists pay about half of what their U.S. counterparts pay. All in all, governments around the world will spend about $100 billion on oil subsidies this year – meaning about half the world’s population is benefiting from “cut-rate” petroleum prices. This year, those folks will account for all of the growth in global oil demand, equal to an additional 1 million barrels of oil per day, says Deutsche Bank AG (DB).

Now, pressure is escalating globally for countries to end the subsidies the world economy can ill-afford. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), for instance, is “calling on governments to let consumers face market prices in order to kick-start conservation and reduce official spending,” says The Christian Science Monitor.

As I hinted earlier, this change has the potential to jam a lot of consumers personally. But it would allow world markets to function as, well, markets. And that, in turn, would afford investors one of the biggest turnaround opportunities available in the energy sector today. The reason: As the subsidy removals, pricing changes and demand shifts work their way through the global economy, the crack spread would widen again… and fast.

And the biggest beneficiaries could well be the oil refiners, which have seen their profits get zapped along with crack spreads in the past year.

The Best Way to Play the Shift From Subsidies

If there is a sector turnaround, the upside could be huge. And the three firms in line to benefit are Western Refining Inc., Valero Energy Corp. and Holly Corp. Let’s take a closer look at each of the three:

Western Refining Inc. (WNR): The El Paso, Tex.-based Western is an independent crude-oil refiner that owns and operates four refineries, and that also owns and runs 155 retail service stations and convenience stores in the Southwest. Although Western’s shares rose 77 cents each, or nearly 7.1%, to close at $11.66 yesterday (Thursday), the stock is down 82% from its 52-week high of $66.13. Independent researcher Soleil Securities Group Inc., this week initiated coverage of Western with a “Sell” rating and a target price of $8, contending that the company is highly leveraged and has seen its shares suffer in concert with its peers as part of a general sector downturn. That underscores the sentiment these companies face. But a return to its 52-week high would represent a 467% gain.

The Commodity Investor Q&A Wednesday April 30, 2008

Matt Badiali — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:33:57 +0000

If the government demanded U.S. oil be sold at a massive discount to domestic markets, oil producers would stop investing in the U.S. And we’d end up buying all of our oil abroad.

Q: Why are oil prices so high? – M.

A: I can tell you the answer, M, but I don’t think everyone is ready to hear it. Let’s just keep this between us, okay? The truth is a lot like finding out the Earth isn’t flat (it’s not) or the sun doesn’t rotate around the Earth (it doesn’t).

Take a look at this chart:

This chart shows the price of crude measured against the money supply. What it means is the price of crude oil hasn’t increased all that much… It’s just kept pace with the supply of dollars trying to buy that crude. (Click here to read more about this chart.)

So that’s why oil prices have climbed. But why haven’t they fallen back as the U.S. economic slowdown puts a damper on demand? CNN, Fox, CNBC, and all the talking heads assured us demand in other countries would dry up as the U.S. slipped into recession.

Well, I’m afraid the U.S. isn’t the center of the economic universe anymore… and we’ve got a lot of competition.

Back in the 1930s, the U.S. was a country of small towns separated by vast farmlands. Tiny, unreliable roads were the only link between those towns.

That’s where India and China are today. However, they don’t want to stay that way. They want to progress from poor agrarian societies to modern (dare I say more Western) societies. Unfortunately, they aren’t patient. They want it right now.

That means huge infrastructure projects – new power stations, railroads, power lines, water systems, and sewer lines. All that development requires raw commodities like iron, copper, gas… and oil.

As these countries grow, transportation demand grows as well. That requires more gasoline for cars, diesel for trucks, kerosene for jets, and bunker fuel for ships. Along with transportation comes electrification, which requires more natural gas for electrical power.

It all adds up to serious competition for oil and gas on a world stage.

It doesn’t look like the Fed is going to stop the printing presses anytime soon. So don’t expect to see $40 oil again. Add in exploding international demand, and prices are set to climb into the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the U.S. needs to decide where the next 100 years of oil are going to come from and focus on making deals… because that’s what China and India are doing right now.

As I’ve written before, I think Canada will likely be our “gas station” for decades. Already, billions of dollars are pouring into Alberta’s vast oil sands. But I think the big story is another huge deposit most investors haven’t heard of. Click here to read the full story.

Q: Why can’t Americans buy our own oil for less than the OPEC price? – D.C. Cab Driver

A: This question needs some explaining before I answer it. I caught a cab from my hotel to Reagan International Airport yesterday morning. On the radio, some blockhead proposed that our domestic crude production should be sold at a radical discount to world prices.

His hypothesis was that domestic oil belongs to all of us, and it should be used to lower fuel prices. My cabbie was nodding as if this knucklehead on the radio just told us the secret of life.

Let’s think about how markets work. If you make something and can sell it in Italy for a $50 profit or down the street for a $10 profit, where are you going to sell it?

But if your neighborhood demands that, since you live close by, you must sell your goods at an 80% discount… that would be extortion. You’d call the cops, right?

If the government demanded U.S. oil be sold at a massive discount to domestic markets, oil producers would stop investing in the U.S. And we’d end up buying all of our oil abroad.

So the answer to higher oil prices is the one thing Americans are terrible at: dieting.

If you don’t want to pay high oil prices, go on an oil diet. I’m thinking about doing it myself. We bought a big Ford when we had our second daughter. While we like the room, we don’t need it. And when it costs $60 to $70 a week in gas, we really don’t need it.

I’m not going to sell my Ford out of a misplaced sense of environmental angst. I’m going to sell it because gas is expensive. I’d rather spend that money on something else… like oil company stock.

Good investing,

Matt

Editor’s Note: Got a question about the commodities market? Send us an e-mail at editorialfeedback@growthstockwire.com… and look for an answer next week!